[Advaita-l] Taattvika Abheda and vyavaharika bheda in Dvaita and Advaita

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Next thing is
> Are the forms of the Lord of the same order of Reality as the svarUpam of
> the Lord ?
>
> We have Sri Krishna Bhagavan saying बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि etc. The
> forms are not frozen in time , they are changeable and non eternal. Any
> form that is noneternal cannot be of the same sattA (order of Reality) as
> the svarUpam which is the Truth pervading all these forms of the Lord. So
> if we use the word satyaM for the svarUpa which is formless and eternal ,
> we cannot use the same word satya for any given form of the Lord, the form
> being noneternal.
>

There is a point in the above.  There cannot be a 'niyata rupa' for
Brahman.  All rupas are 'taken, assumed' by Brahman for specific purposes.
Also, a rupa is an attribute of tejas dravya, like taste is of jala, sound
is of akasha. Rupa requires the chakshurindriya to be perceived. If Brahman
has a niyata rupa, the bhoutika chakshus will be required to perceive it.
But the Upanishad says: na sandrishe tishTati ruupamasya, na chakshushaa
pasyati kashchanainam' (kathopanishat).  'There is no rupam for Brahman and
none can see it.'  And goes on to say: through the mind, unsullied by
external things, one can comprehend Brahman.'  So, Brahman is a vishaya for
the manovritti and not chakshurindriya gocharam like ghaTa paTaadi.  Nor is
Vishvarupa a mandate by the shastra for moksha. It is an aid for upasana
that Brahman is everything.  Also there is no proof for an 'apraakrita
niyata ruupa for Brahman' for the concept of form, color is an attribute of
prakriti alone and nothing else. That is why all forms like Narasimha,
Rama, etc. were chakshurindriya gochara forms.

vs

>
> Om
>
>
>
> On Tue 17 Jul, 2018, 11:20 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> > It was said
> >
> > -- in Dvaita such various
> > forms of the Lord are sattya (even though the svarUpa of such forms is
> One
> > and only)
> >
> > This implies
> > 1. The Lord has various 'forms'
> > 2. There is a certain 'svarUpa' of these very 'forms' which is 'One'
> only .
> > 3. That svarUpa of the Lord cannot be one more (i.e., yet another )
> > specific 'form' since all forms are already covered in statement 1.
> > 4 This implies that the svarUpa has got to be 'formless' .
> >
> > We can extend the 4 above sentences to other aspects like  'attributes'
> > instead of forms .
> >
> > The svarUpa of the Lord who appears in all various forms and is One only
> > cannot be one more particular form - His svarUpa is formless .
> >
> > Om
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue 17 Jul, 2018, 10:49 PM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:31 AM V Subrahmanian <
> v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You are unaware that Advaita accepts Shakti for Brahman for otherwise
> >> > Brahman is incapable of doing anything. BSB 1.4.3:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You are forgetting such admittance is only a upAya to explain this
> >> creation
> >> and not a real admittance. You cannot argue based on such  interim
> >> position. It is an vyabhichAra in the vAda.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Satya bheda is denied by Madhva across bhagavadrupas. He has said:
> >> > accepting abheda and bheda will lead to andha tamas.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are missing the point. What is being denied is seeing bhEda in
> >> shkati/vIrya/jnyAna between bhagavat rUpas. This is what Iskonites does
> by
> >> saying Krishna is superior to Narayana and other forms etc.. Madhva does
> >> not deny the very presence of these avataara rUpas and the difference
> >> between various qualities exhibited in those rUpas. For example -- some
> >> rUpas exhibits pure bala kArya (such as matsya narasimAdi rUpas), some
> >> other rUpas exhibits jnyAna kaarya (such vyAsa kapilAdi rupas), yet in
> >> some
> >> other KrishnAdi rupAs both types are exhibited. What is being denied is
> >> one
> >> should not see lack of jnAna in NarashimAdi rUpa and lack of bala in
> >> vyasAdi rUpas etc.
> >>
> >> /sv
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>